Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing

CRISPR technology in human diseases

Gene editing is a growing gene engineering technique that allows accurate editing of a broad spectrum of gene-regulated diseases to achieve curative treatment and also has the potential to be used as an adjunct to the conventional treatment of diseases. Gene editing technology, mainly based on clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-CRISPR-associated protein systems, which is capable of generating genetic modifications in somatic cells, provides a promising new strategy for gene therapy for a wide range of human diseases. Currently, gene editing technology shows great application prospects in a variety of human diseases, not only in therapeutic potential but also in the construction of animal models of human diseases. This paper describes the application of gene editing technology in hematological diseases, solid tumors, immune disorders, ophthalmological diseases, and metabolic diseases; focuses on the therapeutic strategies of gene editing technology in sickle cell disease; provides an overview of the role of gene editing technology in the construction of animal models of human diseases; and discusses the limitations of gene editing technology in the treatment of diseases, which is intended to provide an important reference for the applications of gene editing technology in the human disease.

Global health and global governance of emerging biomedical technologies

Global governance of emerging, disruptive biomedical technologies presents a multitude of ethical problems. The recent paper by Shozi et al raises some of these problems in the context of a discussion of what could be the most disruptive (and most morally fraught) emerging biomedical technology-human germline genome editing. At the heart of their argument is the claim that, for something like gene editing, there is likely to be tension between the interests of specific states in crafting regulation for the technology, and disagreement about what would be necessary to meet the requirements for responsible translation of gene editing into the clinic. This complicates hopes for a tidy, algorithmic process of crafting global governance via frameworks for regulation built around core 'ethical values and principles' (as they are called in the WHO Framework), and also forces us to confront deeper philosophical questions about biotechnology and global health.

A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results

This paper reports the results of a public engagement study on heritable human genome editing (HHGE) carried out in South Africa, which was conducted in accordance with a study protocol that was published in this journal in 2021. This study is novel as it is the first public engagement study on HHGE in Africa. It used a deliberative public engagement (DPE) methodology, entailing inter alia that measures were put in place to ensure that potential participants became informed about HHGE, and that deliberations between the participants were facilitated with the aim of seeking consensus. A diverse group of 30 persons was selected to participate in the DPE study, which took place via Zoom over three consecutive weekday evenings. The main results are: Provided that HHGE is safe and effective, an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of HHGE to prevent genetic health conditions and for immunity against TB and HIV/Aids, while significant majorities opposed allowing HHGE for enhancement. The dominant paradigm during the deliberations was balancing health benefits (and associated improvements in quality of life) with unforeseen health risks (such as loss of natural immunity). The seriousness of a health condition emerged as the determining factor for the policy choice of whether to allow an application of HHGE. More generally, equal access to HHGE qua healthcare service featured as an important value, and it was uncontested that the South African government should allocate resources to promote scientific research into HHGE. These results are aligned with the policy principles for regulating HHGE in South Africa suggested by Thaldar et al. They call for urgent revision of South African ethics guidelines that currently prohibit research on HHGE, and for dedicated HHGE legal regulations that provide a clear and comprehensive legal pathway for researchers who intend to conduct HHGE research and clinical trials.

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.